According to the price guide NYWCo serial numbers go up to 60,000. Accordig to the price guide Hampdens first year serial numbers go up to 59000. Hampden took over NYWCo. So where did Hampden start their serial numbers? I have heard Hampden kept the same serial number system as NYWCo and did not start over at 0001. I have heard Hampden started around numbering their watches at around 58000 but I can not confirm this. If they Did how could NYWCo go up to 60000? At some point NYWCo changed their barrel bridge and added the little point and it looks like that happened prior to serial number 45000. I have also heard that Hampden put their Hampden dial on NYWCo movements that they were finishing after they ran out of the NYWCo dials. Again just something I heard.

I have three movements that consist of the old bridge design and the new bridge design that should be NYWCo movements but they have Hampden dials. Here are the serial numbers, 33262 Chester Woolworth old bridge plate design, 48140 Chester Woolworth new plate design, and 54396 just signed Studley with serial number on plate and bridge both the same number and the new plate design.

Thanks for any help that you can provide,
Harry

All I can say is have fun The records are no longer around I was told long balance cocks are New York Watch Co. And short Balance cocks are Hampden Some were signed Boston Watch Co. Have a few of those

Thank you Tom. In general I think that is true but I don't think so in the end of NYWCo and the early days of Hampden in the transition period. I say this because on page 337 of the price guide upper right illustration in a NYWCo Theo E. Studley # 43466 with the short balance cock.

According to the price guide the Hampden Studley is listed as Theo Studley and the NYWCo Studley is listed as Theo E. Studley. The picture of the one I am including is marked only as "Studley". It looks like the illustration on page 337. It also has the serial number inscribed on the plate and on the barrel bridge which is the only NYWCo/Hampden I have seen with the serial number in two places.

Harry

I looked into this also , it would appear that Hampden used up old stock , just for a point of reference , those before 59000 should be New York Watches , but there is no hard line that I have seen . you might want to search this topic

here is one

https://ihc185.infopop.cc/eve/...561069862#7561069862

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for the link. Lindell and a few others shared their opinions and for lack of any other contradictory theories theirs seems to be very sound. They all agree that the lower serial number would indicate the movement was made by the NYWCo. The Hampden dial on the one pictured in the article and on my three seem to indicate that they were in inventory when Hampden took over the NYWCo and the movement was sold while Hampden was the owner which would explain why these movements have Hampden dials.

David Abbe mentioned since it was a PL that Hampden stamped and earlier serial number on it. He late came to another conclusion. I don't believe the lower serial number indicated anything. Mine is a lower serial number but is a Studley grade which was a NYWCo and Hampden grade. So the most plausible explanation to me is a watch made by NYWCo and later sold by Hampden.

Thanks for your input Kevin,
Harry

Don't forget to rule out previous owners , either repairing them or making them "right" for the time , I have seen the Hampden first serial go back and forth

Hi Kevin,

Yes I have heard from a couple of knowledgeable people that Hampden serial numbers started at around 58000. The Hampden blue book says Hampden started at 58000. The price guide shows the first year Hampdens went to 59000 so that would indicate that only 1000 first year Hampdens were produced. I am almost certain that my Hampdens are NYWCo movements that were either sold by Hampden thus the Hampden dials or someone replaced the NYWCo dials. All three dials are identical so that leads me to believe the watches were made by NYWCo and sold by Hampden.

I was drawn to this one because I thought it was a NYWCo watch and I thought it interesting to have the same serial number on both the plate and the bridge and also that it was marked only "Studley" and not Theo Studley. But I am sending it back. The seller said it ran which it does not. The movement is loose in the case because the case screw is stripped. It arrived with the cock loose so that may have damaged the balance staff pivots or jewels and maybe that is why it does not run. The hairspring outer coils are rubbing together and also rubbing the regulator pins so I thing the hairspring is too large for the movement and last the whole plate and bridge has been highly buffed and all the guilt has been removed.

Harry

In case you want to keep the pocket watch I have new hairsprings, balance, Staffs and balance jewels
For the old key winds. If he give you so money back

Thank you Tom, He never answered my email advising him of the return so it is on its way back. I don't know how to re-vibrate the hairspring and that along with a new set of jewels if it needs that plus the fact that the case screw is stripped and the movement has been buffed to a high shine giving it a very brassy look with some of the detail in the inscription smoothed out I think it would be more money than the watch is worth. If I could do all the work myself it may have been worth it.

Thanks for the offer thought,
Harry